moonshine: 47 posts

“She simply walked into the pond in Kensington Gardens Sunday morning and drowned herself in three feet of water.”

This is the opening sentence of The Ishango Bone, a novel by Paul Hastings Wilson. It (re)tells the story of a young mathematician at Cambridge, Amiele, who (dis)proves the Riemann Hypothesis at the age of 26, is denied the Fields medal, and commits suicide.

More likely, the correct time frame is in the first decade of this century. On page 121 Amiele meets Alain Connes, said to be a “past winner of the Crafoord Prize”, which Alain obtained in 2001. In fact, noncommutative geometry and its interaction with quantum physics plays a crucial role in her ‘proof’.

The Ishango artefact only appears in the Coda to the book. There are a number of theories on the nature and grouping of the scorings on the bone. In one column some people recognise the numbers 11, 13, 17 and 19 (the primes between 10 and 20).

In the book, Amiele remarks that the total number of lines scored on the bone (168) “happened to be the exact total of all the primes between 1 and 1000” and “if she multiplied 60, the total number of lines in one side column, by 168, the grand total of lines, she’d get 10080,…,not such a far guess from 9592, the actual total of primes between 1 and 100000.” (page 139-140)

The bone is believed to be more than 20000 years old, prime numbers were probably not understood until about 500 BC…

More interesting than these speculations on the nature of the Ishango bone is the description of the tools Amiele thinks to need to tackle the Riemann Hypothesis:

“These included algebraic geometry (which combines commutative algebra with the language and problems of geometry); noncommutative geometry (concerned with the geometric approach to associative algebras, in which multiplication is not commutative, that is, for which $x$ times $y$ does not always equal $y$ times $x$); quantum field theory on noncommutative spacetime, and mathematical aspects of quantum models of consciousness, to name a few.” (page 115)

The breakthrough came two years later when Amiele was giving a lecture on Grothendieck’s dessins d’enfant.

“Dessin d’enfant, or ‘child’s drawing’, which Amiele had discovered in Grothendieck’s work, is a type of graph drawing that seemed technically simple, but had a very strong impression on her, partly due to the familiar nature of the objects considered. (…) Amiele found subtle arithmetic invariants associated with these dessins, which were completely transformed, again, as soon as another stroke was added.” (page 116)

Amiele’s ‘disproof’ of RH is outlined on pages 122-124 of “The Ishango Bone” and is a mixture of recognisable concepts and ill-defined terms.

“Her final result proved that Riemann’s Hypothesis was false, a zero must fall to the east of Riemann’s critical line whenever the zeta function of point $q$ with momentum $p$ approached the aelotropic state-vector (this is a simplification, of course).” (page 123)

More details are given in a footnote:

“(…) a zero must fall to the east of Riemann’s critical line whenever:

(…) The intrepid are invited to try the equation for themselves.” (page 124)

Wilson’s “The Ishango Bone” was published in 2012. A fair number of topics covered (the Ishango bone, dessin d’enfant, Riemann hypothesis, quantum theory) also play a prominent role in the 2015 paper/story by Michel Planat “A moonshine dialogue in mathematical physics”, but this time with additional story-line: monstrous moonshine…

The monstrous moonshine picture is a sub-graph of Conway’s Big Picture on 218 vertices. These vertices are the classes of lattices needed in the construction of the 171 moonshine groups. That is, moonshine gives us the shape of the picture.

But we can ask to reverse this process. Is the shape of the picture dictated by group-theoretic properties of the monster?

That is, can we reconstruct the 218 lattices and their edges starting from say the conjugacy classes of the monster and some simple rules?

Look at the the power maps for the monster. That is, the operation on conjugacy classes sending the class of $g$ to that of $g^k$ for all divisors $k$ of the order of $g$. Or, if you prefer, the $\lambda$-ring structure on the representation ring.

(1) : If $d=8$ and a power map of $g$ gives class $8C$ add $(n|4)$ to your list.

(2) : Otherwise, look at the smallest power of $g$ such that the class is one of $12J,8F,6F,4D, 3C,2B$ or $1A$ and add $(n|e)$ where $e$ is the order of that class, or, if $n > 24$ and $e$ is even add $(n | \frac{e}{2})$.

A few examples:

For class 20E, $d=4$ and the power maps give classes 4D and 2B, so we add $(20|2)$.

For class 32B, $d=8$ but the power map gives 8E so we resort to rule (2). Here the power maps give 8E, 4C and 2B. So, the best class is 4C but as $32 > 24$ we add $(32|2)$.

For class 93A, $d=3$ and the power map gives 3C and even though $93 > 24$ we add $(93|3)$.

This gives us a list of instances $(n|e)$ with $n$ the order of a monster element. For $N=n \times e$ look at all divisors $h$ of $24$ such that $h^2$ divides $N$ and add to your list of lattices those of the form $M \frac{g}{h}$ with $g$ strictly smaller than $h$ and $(g,h)=1$ and $M$ a divisor of $\frac{N}{h^2}$.

This gives us a list of lattices $M \frac{g}{h}$, which is an $h$-th root of unity centered as $L=M \times h$ (see this post). If we do this for all lattices in the list we can partition the $L$’s in families according to which roots of unity are centered at $L$.

This gives us the moonshine picture. (modulo mistakes I made)

The operations we have to do after we have our list of instances $(n|e)$ is pretty straightforward from the rules we used to determine the lattices needed to describe a moonshine group.

Perhaps the oddest part in the construction are the rules (1) and (2) and the prescribed conjugacy classes used in them.

One way to look at this is that the classes $8C$ and $12J$ (or $24J$) are special. The other classes are just the power-maps of $12J$.

Another ‘rationale’ behind these classes may come from the notion of harmonics (see the original Monstrous moonshine paper page 312) of the identity element and the two classes of involutions, 2A (the Fischer involutions) and 2B (the Conway involutions).

For 1A these are : 1A,3C

For 2A these are : 2A,4B,8C

For 2B these are : 2B,4D,6F,8F,12J,24J

These are exactly the classes that we used in (1) and (2), if we add the power-classes of 8C.

and it involves all square roots of unity ($42$, $42 \frac{1}{2}$ and $168$) and $3$-rd roots of unity ($28$, $28 \frac{1}{3}$, $28 \frac{2}{3}$ and $252$) centered at $84$.

No, I’m not hallucinating, there are indeed $3$ square roots of unity and $4$ third roots of unity as they come in two families, depending on which of the two canonical forms to express a lattice is chosen.

In the ‘normal’ expression $M \frac{g}{h}$ the two square roots are $42$ and $42 \frac{1}{2}$ and the three third roots are $28, 28 \frac{1}{3}$ and $28 \frac{2}{3}$. But in the ‘other’ expression
\[
M \frac{g}{h} = (\frac{g’}{h},\frac{1}{h^2M}) \]
(with $g.g’ \equiv 1~mod~h$) the families of $2$-nd and $3$-rd roots of unity are
\[
\{ 42 \frac{1}{2} = (\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{168}), 168 = (0,\frac{1}{168}) \} \]
and
\[
\{ 28 \frac{1}{3} = (\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{252}), 28 \frac{2}{3} = (\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{252}), 252 = (0 , \frac{1}{252}) \} \]
As in the tetrahedral snake post, it is best to view the four $3$-rd roots of unity centered at $84$ as the vertices of a tetrahedron with center of gravity at $84$. Power maps in the first family correspond to rotations along the axis through $252$ and power maps in the second family are rotations along the axis through $28$.

In the ‘normal’ expression of lattices there’s then a total of 8 different local types, but two of them consist of just one number lattice: in $8$ the local picture contains all square, $4$-th and $8$-th roots of unity centered at $8$, and in $84$ the square and $3$-rd roots.

Perhaps surprisingly, if we redo everything in the ‘other’ expression (and use the other families of roots of unity), then the moonshine picture has only 7 types of local behaviour. The forgotten type $84$ appears to split into two occurrences of other types (one with only square roots of unity, and one with only $3$-rd roots).

I wonder what all this has to do with the action of the Bost-Connes algebra on the big picture or with Plazas’ approach to moonshine via non-commutative geometry.

“Unfortunately none of these definitions is completely satisfactory. At the moment all constructions of the algebraic structures above seem artificial; they are constructed as sums of two or more apparently unrelated spaces, and it takes a lot of effort to define the algebraic structure on the sum of these spaces and to check that the monster acts on the resulting structure. It is still an open problem to find a really simple and natural construction of the monster vertex algebra.”

Here’s 2 minutes of John Conway on the “one thing” he really wants to know before he dies: why the monster group exists.

moonshine

Moonshine started off with McKay’s observation that 196884 (the first coefficient in the normalized j-function) is the sum 1+196883 of the dimensions of the two smallest simple representations of $\mathbb{M}$.

Soon it was realised that every conjugacy class of the monster has a genus zero group (or ‘moonshine group’) associated to it.

Borcherds proved the ‘monstrous moonshine conjectures’ asserting that the associated main modular function of such a group is the character series of the action of the element on the monster vertex algebra.

“We now understand the significance, in the VOA or CFT framework, of transformations in $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$, but (ii) emphasises that many modular transformations relevant to Moonshine are more general (called the Atkin-Lehner involutions). Monstrous moonshine will remain mysterious until we can understand its Atkin-Lehner symmetries.”

Another of my pet follow-up projects is to determine whether or not the monster group $\mathbb{M}$ dictates the shape of the moonshine picture.

That is, can one recover the 97 number lattices and their partition in 7 families starting from the set of element orders of $\mathbb{M}$, applying some set of simple rules?

One of these rules will follow from the two equivalent notations for lattices, and the two different sets of roots of unities centered at a given lattice. This will imply that if a number lattice belongs to a given family, certain divisors and multiples of it must belong to related families.

If this works out, it may be a first step towards a possibly new understanding of moonshine.